Gun Control & the Catholic Church

[Greg27]

Though I really enjoyed shooting automatic weapons and the M-16 when I was in the Army, I
see no need for the sell of assualt weapons to the general public. Why? look at reason # 2
why I do not keep firearms in my home.

The main force behind the opposition to sensible gun ownership laws is the firearm
industry and it is based on greed and is feed on fear.

Your argument sounds reasonable, but let me make a few points. Number one, what is an assault weapon? The fact is, there is no definition. An assault weapon is whatever a politician, or one of their lackeys in the media decides.

When this point is brought up, the other side starts talking about hand grenades, artillery pieces and atomic bombs. This is really a case of changing the subject of the discussion. I know of people who own legal machine guns. They are not the problem. My point is, other than something like hand grenades, which are a threat to public safety, exactly what type of small are someone owns is not the business of government. Rather, government is supposed to protect our rights. Government is supposed to apprehend, convict and punish the criminal element - not attack our rights.

If a semi-automatic AR-15, or a semi-automatic AK-47 is an “assault weapon”, maybe next year the m1 carbine, or even the m1 rifle may qualify. Do we really want to let our politicians decide what type of weapon we can own. And do we really want them to know who owns what?

There have been incidents right here in the US, in New Jersey and California where certain firearms were blacklisted. The state passed laws requiring that they be registered. A few years later, they were outlawed. The owners now had to turn them in to the politicians. That is really the only reason for registering firearms. Eventual confiscation.

That’s what history teaches. The Twentieth Century was the most bloody in history. More people died in wars than in any other century in recorded history. And four times the number of people killed in wars were killed by their own governments!

Politicians are not to be trusted. That’s why the Founders gave us the Second Amendment. In our system, government is supposed to be our servant, not our master. If you think that we need some sensible gun control laws, take a look at the federal agencies that have been arming themselves over the last ten or fifteen years. Take a look at the DVD called Freedom to Fascism that is circulating. If you put it all together, it is a frightening picture. For this reason, I am opposed to any attempt of politicians to “control” firearms. They are supposed to use the laws against the criminals, not us.

A SWAT team kicking in someone’s door, and abusing the people inside (who are presumed to be innocent, and many times, are) is not my idea of law enforcement. It is terrorism.

Everybody saw the picture of the Cuban boy, with a thug in black pointing a submachine gun in his face. I think we need some type of controls to reign in abuses like that.

abu kamoon

A major problem in this argument is the assumption that being able to own private weapons would be effective if one came under attack.

Let’s assume a person is armed with rifles, shotguns, pistols, and assault weapons, but is alone and facing a hostile police force. That person could probably hold their own against any police forces sent against them, especially if they organised their defences well.

But such a person, arming themselves with the weapons law allows, would not be able to stand against a government army. They would be quickly and effectively obliterated, especially if they tried to defend their home in a static way and on their own.

In the Soviet Union, people did try to resist, especially during the Civil War and the collectivisation of agriculture, but the resistance was ultimately futile against a better organised and equipped government force. The same applies to a lone person or militia who tried to resist and fight the government. Such resistance would probably be effective only if people formed militias and adopted effective guerilla warfare tactics, and this would require weapons beyond what one could acquire legally. We need to look at Iraq as a good example of what a war between citizens of a country fighting against their government and a hostile military force would look like, and it is not a pretty sight.

I think a good argument can be made for the need to have firearms to defend against criminals, especially in more violent and crime ridden countries or areas (South Africa, Columbia or Iraq). But I think even if someone was well armed, hoping to defeat an army or well-organised police force on one’s own is pretty fantastic.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think a good argument can be made for the need to have firearms to defend against criminals, especially in more violent and crime ridden countries or areas (South Africa, Columbia or Iraq). But I think even if someone was well armed, hoping to defeat an army or well-organised police force on one’s own is pretty fantastic.

That was true in 1776, too – which is way Washington didn’t fight the British all by himself.

But we also benefit from the force-in-being

21 When a strong man fully armed guards his palace, his possessions are safe.

(Luke, 11,21)
Armed and peaceable men rarely have to fight – because everyone knows it will be a tough fight.

 

[Bennie_P]

But we also benefit from the force-in-being

(Luke, 11,21)
Armed and peaceable men rarely have to fight – because everyone knows it will be a tough fight.

You sure took that verse out of context. It has to do demon possesion and according to Wesley …

**Luke11:21-**The strong one armed - The devil, strong in himself, and armed with the pride, obstinacy, and security of him in whom he dwells.

You cannot justify your position by taking an isolated verse like that. First of all, the strong man being spoken of is Satan and if you continue to read you will find that a stronger one (Christ) overtakes him. So are you saying you see yourself, your postion as the same as Satan('s)? I surely don’t think that is want you meant, but that is what you are saying in justifying your postion by using that verse.

Luke11:18 -23 And if Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? Because you say that through Beelzebub I cast out devils. Now if I cast out devils by Beelzebub, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore, they shall be your judges. But if I by the finger of God cast out devils, doubtless the kingdom of God is come upon you.
Luke 11:21 **When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth. **But if a stronger than he come upon him and overcome him, he will take away all his armour wherein he trusted and will distribute his spoils.He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

 

[melensdad]

the problem with no gun control, is that we will see too much violence as a result. (because the wrong people will gain access)

And this is disproven again in Switzerland where almost every home has a fully automatic weapon and ammunition. The problem with gun control is that criminal know they have no competition. When criminals believe someone is armed, they tend to find easier prey. Why is crime so high in Chicago, IL but so low in neighboring Whiting, IN when the ONLY thing that separates the two cities is crossing the street? Literally the east side of the road is Whiting and the west side is Chicago. Whiting is a safe city to live in, walk down the streets with your family, etc. Not so for the south side of Chicago. Perhaps one of the reasons may be the liberal gun laws in Indiana versus the total handgun ban in the city of Chicago?

 

[vern_humphrey]

You sure took that verse out of context. It has to do demon possesion and according to Wesley .

Wesley, who?.

You cannot justify your position by taking an isolated verse like that.

Actually, I can. Christ makes it plain that people protected their own homes, families and posessions in His day. Like many other parables, it sheds light on the common-place in His day.

First of all, the strong man being spoken of is Satan and if you continue to read you will find that a stronger one (Christ) overtakes him. So are you saying you see yourself, your postion as the same as Satan('s)? I surely don’t think that is want you meant, but that is what you are saying in justifying your postion by using that verse.

I say that in Christ’s time, a man protected his own family, home and possessions – so much so that it was a commonplace, and no one would fail to understand that a man would do this.

 

[Bennie_P]

Wesley, who?.

Actually, I can. Christ makes it plain that people protected their own homes, families and posessions in His day. Like many other parables, it sheds light on the common-place in His day.

I say that in Christ’s time, a man protected his own family, home and possessions – so much so that it was a commonplace, and no one would fail to understand that a man would do this.

I will and I do agree that you have the obligation to protect your family, what I was pointing out to you is your use of Luke 11:21 to justify your stand puts you on the wrong side of your own argument - that’s all:shrug:

 

[vern_humphrey]

I will and I do agree that you have the obligation to protect your family, what I was pointing out to you is your use of Luke 11:21 to justify your stand puts you on the wrong side of your own argument - that’s all

Nope – it shows what was a common-place in Christ’s day – and He did not say that was wrong.

 

[Bennie_P]

Nope – it shows what was a common-place in Christ’s day – and He did not say that was wrong.

Well actually when you read the verse in context it means that Satan has taken possession of men whom have had thier hearts darken by Satan’s lies and promises, etc. and Satan is secure in his possession of the man’s souls, which is a great prize for Satan.

So if that is what you claim, that Satan has power over you then go ahead and use Luke 11:21 to justify your position? But I don’t think that is what you want to say or believe?

Believe it or not Vern we are on the same side, were it counts the most, I think?

Luke 11:21-22 -
strong man — meaning Satan.
armed — pointing to all the subtle and varied methods by which he wields his dark power over men.
keepeth — “guardeth.”
his palace — man whether viewed more largely or in individual souls - how significant of what men are to Satan!
in peace — undisturbed, secure in his possession.

 

[melensdad]

Bennie P, I agree with you that in the scripture of Luke it is the strong man who is the devil. The stronger man is God in the Holy Spirit and he lays waste to the strong man’s house.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well actually when you read the verse in context it means that Satan has taken possession of men whom have had thier hearts darken by Satan’s lies and promises, etc. and Satan is secure in his possession of the man’s souls, which is a great prize for Satan.

So if that is what you claim, that Satan has power over you then go ahead and use Luke 11:21 to justify your position? But I don’t think that is what you want to say or believe?

Believe it or not Vern we are on the same side, were it counts the most, I think?

So you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing?

If the ox that fell down the well really means a pharasee, does that mean there were no oxen in Christ’s time?

 

[Bennie_P]

So you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing?

If the ox that fell down the well really means a pharasee, does that mean there were no oxen in Christ’s time?

What do you think counts the most Vern? What is the most important thing to You?

 

[vern_humphrey]

What do you think counts the most Vern? What is the most important thing to You?

God. Is it different for you?

 

[Bennie_P]

God. Is it different for you?

Good, for that is what I meant We are on the same side where it counts the most, for I’m just trying to get to heaven and help as many people along the way as the Lord allows and gives me the Grace to do so.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Good, for that is what I meant We are on the same side where it counts the most, for I’m just trying to get to heaven and help as many people along the way as the Lord allows and gives me the Grace to do so.

And I and my family plan to go to Him – when He calls, not when some meth user sends us.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I don’t believe in everyone being allowed to purchase a gun…and they should be controlled within the home, or your personal space, ie a car…not brought into workplaces, restaurants…etc…

Why? Why should our ability to defend ourselves at work or in restaurants be limited? The CCC doesn’t place any limits or restrictions on our duty to defend ourselves.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I agree with you here–I just disagree in making the leap that the VA Tech massacre would have been minimized had the students been permitted to carry guns. It’s just too much of a leap.

Then, you are wrong. A similar situation to the one that happened at Virginia Tech occurred on January 16th, 2002 at Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia. A disgruntled former student began a similar shooting spree. The difference in this case was that the attack was stopped by three individuals, two of whom were legally armed with handguns. Unfortunately, the attack was not stopped until three people had been killed and three more wounded. Why did it take so long to stop the attack? The good guys had to retrieve their guns from their parked cars before they could confront the gunman because ALS was a gun-free zone.

 

[Sir_Knight]

when did I mention sports shooting in my comment? I’m clearly not talking about hunting, etc…although, I think hunting is a form of violence. I am speaking of owning guns for self defense…yes in principle, good people would know how to use them…but who defines who is a good person? If someone has an anger problem, and purchases a gun because the law entitles them to that…that is a disaster waiting to happen. And it will happen without gun control. The small percentage who would use the guns only if necessary for protection, are out numbered by those who would use them for violence…just my humble opinion.

Respectfully, your humble opinion is incorrect and does not reflect actual real-life events. According to a detailed report by William Sturdevant, people who legally carry firearms are 5.7 times LESS likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public and 13.5 times LESS likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public.

 

[Sir_Knight]

and stopped him from using it further in the Garden. Christ allowing someone to do something, and accepting it are two different things. If you can justify carrying a gun–that Christ would be approving of that, so be it. I don’t see Jesus advocating people carrying guns. It goes against everything He was about.

How about making a whip out of some rope and knocking over & smashing tables and violently throwing people out of a temple?

 

[Sir_Knight]

There’s also scripture that says:

That doesn’t make any sense. One is to sell one’s coat if they lack discermment to slice through to justice and truth? And how will selling one’s coat accomplish this?

Also, all of the other things that Christ mentioned were actual items – a walking stick, a money bag, etc. It wouldn’t make sense for Christ to start talking about actual items and then throw a metaphor in there. That would be confusing.

Remember, Christ was known as the Great teacher and scripture has it that while He spoke symbolicly many times, He ALWAYS explained the meaning to His apostles. No further explaination is offered about this passage. If none is offered, it could only mean that the Apostles understood correctly and Jesus was commanding them to purchase actual swords even if they had to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27 – )? Here the “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equivelant of what a gun is today. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.

Christ wouldn’t advocate violence. Self defense, but not violence.

And people who legally carry firearms, carry them for self-defense purposes as well. They do not initiate the violence but are prepared for it.

 

[Bennie_P]

Why? Why should our ability to defend ourselves at work or in restaurants be limited? The CCC doesn’t place any limits or restrictions on our duty to defend ourselves.

Nor does the CCC take away the rights of governments to regulate gun ownership.

As to Luke 22:35 - 36 you are not even close to the context of the scritpture in your usage, which is concening Jesus and the apostles going to the garden to pray before his passion. This part of the discourse is Jesus warning of the coming danger, if you remember, (you have read the whole story?), when it appeared to be the time to use the sword Jesus told Peter to put it away - you know “live by the sword die by the sword.”
Luke22:35 When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, did you want anything?
Luke 22:36 But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip: and he that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword.
From Wesley -

Luke 22:35 - When I sent you - lacked ye any thing - Were ye not borne above all want and danger?(as in Christ?) Luke 22:36 - But now - You will be quite in another situation. You will want every thing. He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one - It is plain, this is not to be taken literally. It only means, This will be a time of extreme danger

.
But if you want to sell your coat and buy sword do so. But there is nothing in scripture about selling your coat and buying a Colt 45, nor a Barretta,nor a Smith and Wesson, nor an AK 47, nor an AR-15. Your justification as you state it isn’t there.

Matthew 26:52 Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.